Method and data structure for the computer-aided management of developments
The invention relates to a method and a data structure for the computer-aided management of developments, which are disclosed in particular in patents, utility models and technical publications, via classification system.
Databases are used as a clear and generally computer-aided method of managing large stocks of data, the data structure advantageously being adapted to the relationships of the data elements. A broad distinction can be made between databases organized on a tabular, hierarchical and neural basis. Conventional patent databases contain, for example, relationships to the person of the inventor, the priority date, the International Patent Classification (IPC) and many more. Specific data structures and methods for computer-aided management are known from IPC G06F 17/60. Thus, for example, investors' shares are managed and dealt in with computer assistance on computer stock exchanges, the valuation of the shares taking place by means of weightings, and these being changed accordance with economic trends. The strategy here can be determined by persons or by artificial intelligence (AI) systems.
Property rights represent a form of development management. The statutory property rights for intellectual property guarantee, in various categories, the right of the copyright holder, inventor or applicant (hereinafter referred to for brevity as the inventor) in intangible values created by him, in particular in documented developments made available to the public (hereinafter referred to for brevity as developments). In the case of patents and utility models an absolute prohibitive right is granted in respect of the inventive and novel features, which in the case of patents is optionally narrowly limited officially (hereinafter referred to for brevity as an officially right) by substantive official examination (hereinafter referred to for brevity as examination). In the remaining cases an as yet unexamined absolute prohibitive right is promised inclusively and without limitation (hereinafter referred to for brevity as an inclusive right). Only in the event of conflict is this inclusive right more closely specified at civil law and, in general, restricted or deleted. A justification for this kind of procedure is to be found in the large number of developments and in the expense entailed in an examination. Accordingly, officially examined inventive and novel features are to be found only in examined patents.
Customarily, the number of examinations is restricted simply by the fact that, by law, not all developments are eligible for examined protection. These limitations are occasionally adjusted for economic reasons. Technical and industrial utility are widespread as a criterion, since the limits of this criterion approximately coincide with the economic reasons for industrial law protection. Furthermore, this restriction has the advantage that the determination of inventive and novel features, being for the most part technically related, is comparatively simple. Nevertheless the expense increases constantly as a result of the steadily growing number of developments, since the knowledge of the world community at least doubles every ten years.
Theoretically, the absolute prohibitive right of an inventor does not result in conflicts with third party prohibitive rights. An examination endeavours to ensure this and to find, as objectively as possible and uniformly in all cases, a yardstick whereby an scope of protection can be defined for a specific level of inventiveness. In an examination, theoretically, the entire accessible stock of knowledge is cited against the possible development and examined integrally. In practice, this is done in the patent offices by experts who are knowledgeable in their specific areas. However, an examination of the world's knowledge is made more difficult in addition by the literally inexhaustible flood of information, its redundant accumulation of information and ever-narrowing specialized areas. The expense of an individual examination (in respect of one individual development) thus again increases disproportionately.
As a consequence of this the management of developments, in patent office for example, encounters an administrative limit. There are obviously two possible approaches to management without allowing the expense of an examination to increase beyond a threshold for which there are usually economic justifications.
a) The number of examinations is artificially restricted, for example in that many inventors find official rights too unattractive, for example too expensive or laborious, as compared with inclusive rights. A shift takes place, in terms of numbers, away from the official right to an inclusive one. As a result there will always only be a few official rights, as many as can be officially handled. The consequence is a civil law treatment of individual cases by case law in the event of conflicts. Case law usually differs considerably from that of an examination and is assessed at the discretion of the judges, and therefore not necessarily substantively correct. It is impractical for civil law decisions to be reached on the basis of expertise in the specialized field. PA1 b) The quality of the examination is massively reduced in order to cut expense. As a result it becomes unobjective and so fails as an examination. The consequence is a clash between the granted official rights, which shifts the cost of an official substantive examination to other authorities, for example patent courts, or ultimately results in the virtual worthlessness of such rights. PA1 primarily for the inventor to obtain an instrument for his development, PA1 secondarily for the self-financing of this method in offices. PA1 before the publication of the document and within a period observing the date of application (internal priority), the description and, depending on the relationship, the verbal definition relating to means and effect, although necessarily while maintaining the respective reference system, PA1 after this period, only the verbal definition relating to means and effect, depending on the relationship, from the pool of the description. It would also be possible in this way to record as documents further documents with a time-limited publication protection, for example utility models. PA1 for novelty in relation to the date of application in the case of novel relationships, PA1 their status (substantive accuracy) at the current time PA1 and the level of inventiveness of their set operation and grants the instrument (grants the examined property right) or not. In the case of granting, a copy of the document is recorded in the data structure as an instrument which specifies in the claims, in particular the status of the individual relationships and the time of granting. Particularly in the case of a negative action, the inventor can propose to the office within a period permissible modified relationships which are examined anew, as already set forth above. If there is no compliance with this, the application is deemed to have been withdrawn. PA1 the substantive accuracy of individual relationships of an instrument, PA1 the lack of novelty, demonstrated by relationships of a third party, of individual relationships of an instrument, PA1 and there is no level of inventiveness in the set operation of said relationships of an instrument. The office informs the inventor of the successful objection, and affords him an opportunity to make a counter statement. On the basis of up-to-date knowledge argued by third parties, of counter statements of the inventor and by the office, the novelty and the status of each individual relationship can be changed, and the instrument can be completely withdrawn because of a lack of level of inventiveness of its set operation. However, before this the inventor is permitted to propose modified relationships (up to the null set, that is to say without a scope of protection) in a limiting fashion to the office and third party within a period. The modified relationships are recorded in the data structure with the time of their granting. The inventor can appeal against these changes by the office. PA1 novelty of novel relationships: PA1 substantive accuracy of the (real) relationships: "Does yellow paint (means) clearly effect sealing of the surface (effect)".fwdarw.YES, although the same effect in the ideal system is likewise correct with other means: "Does a closed separating layer (means) effect a one-to-one sealing of the surface (effect)".fwdarw.YES. In the above case, by means of his relationships the inventor excludes (consciously or unconsciously) higher-order means. However, this is not significant for the office. "Does a surface shining yellow (means) clearly effect sealing of the surface (effect)".fwdarw.NO (it is also possible to irradiate bodies with yellow), must, by contrast, lead to a 0% status of the relationship, but this is not sufficient for not granting the instrument. Answering this question can be supported by expert systems which search over all relationships with equivalent significance and 1% status within the dedicated data structure. PA1 necessary level of inventiveness (for example, max. N=3 and min. M=1 novel relationship with 1% status): "1%: 1; 2; novel+1%: 1".fwdarw.INVENTIVE, but "1%: 1; 2; 3; 4; novel+1%: 1; 2)".fwdarw.NOT INVENTIVE, the latter is sufficient for not granting the instrument. Answering this question can be automated via suitable procedures by arranging that the latter read out the status data of the relationships and neutrally examine the decision criteria.
Future practice is likely to select the method according to a), since otherwise official rights, for example examined patents, will eventually become meaningless, as is already the case in many places with the inclusively granted scope of protection for other inclusive rights, for example in the case of utility models, which increasingly result in conflicts because the scopes of protection overlap. The actual development is not sufficiently specifically defined in this case. As a result, an objective management of developments (hereinafter referred to for brevity as development management), over and above the administrative management of printed publications, is made much more difficult.